Hearing in the work and social committee

Today, the Lion Mothers participated in the oral hearing on the Labor and Social Affairs Committee's budget for 2026 (the state budget). Treasurer and deputy member Edda S. Aaland and deputy chair Elin Gunnarsson participated on behalf of the organization. 

The Lion Mothers have also submitted a written consultation note to the committee members ahead of the oral hearing in which we raise everything from care allowances after the death of children, basic and auxiliary benefits, and a family coordinator in NAV.

You can see and read both below here.

The oral hearing in text format

We want to point out an unfair hole in the safety net: parents who lose their jobs while receiving childcare benefits are not entitled to unemployment benefits. 

Other social security schemes, such as sickness benefits, parental benefits and maternity benefits, give the right to unemployment benefits if you lose your job along the way. The same must apply to recipients of care benefits. They are in an extraordinary situation and have neither the time nor the opportunity to look for work while caring for their child. They work around the clock – for their child – and cannot have worse conditions than other employees.

This affects very few people and will not have major budgetary consequences, but it means a lot to those affected.

Lack of entitlement to unemployment benefits creates financial insecurity and can push families out of the workforce and into poverty, which is in direct contradiction to the purpose behind the care benefit scheme – namely to ensure connection to the workforce, income and security for families in crisis.

We ask the Storting to ensure that care benefits are equated with earned income in the National Insurance Act, Section 4-4, so that parents who lose their jobs during the period are entitled to unemployment benefits – just like everyone else. 

The current care allowance scheme gives all care allowance recipients the right to care allowance for 6 weeks after the death of the child. However, if you have had 100% care allowance continuously for 3 years or more before the death, you are entitled to care allowance for 3 months after the death of the child. As if there is a difference in grief.

The Lion Mothers believe that this three-year distinction is artificial and unreasonable and are asking that the right to care allowance after the child's death applies for 3 months in any case. The current distinction affects, among other things, families who experience acute illness and punishes caregivers who manage to contribute at their workplace. Losing a child is life-changing regardless of how long you have been ill and/or in palliative care prior to the death, and regardless of how much you have managed to work or not. Having worked either full or part-time in the time before you lose your child will not make it easier to return to work. This should not be about time to "adjust" to working life again, but about all-consuming grief that we believe cannot be treated differently. 

I myself have a child who will die far too early. Fortunately, for most people, that is unthinkable, but for some of us it is reality. When it comes down to it, I will practically lose time to grieve for my son – and to help his little sister grieve for her big brother – because I will hopefully be able to work a little in an insanely stressful life situation. 

I already know that the tasks that await after my son's death are brutal and time-consuming. After six weeks, I will barely have had time to bury him, not to mention the painful tasks that concern the system around my son. My alternative is to get to the GP and fight my case to get a sick note on what is actually the wrong basis – grief is not a mental illness. However, we know that difficult circumstances surrounding a death pose a risk of complicated grief, which can very much cause long-term suffering. Then the aspect that deals with the care allowance period after the child's death is something that can be made less difficult in a simple way by removing this three-year gap. 

The lion mothers believe that there should be absolutely no room for bereavement discrimination in the care allowance scheme, as it is today.

The written consultation submission

Written consultation input from the Lion Mothers

Løvemammaene is an organization for children and young people with serious illnesses and disabilities, and their relatives. We have over 9,300 members and thus represent thousands of families who face demanding caregiving tasks every day. 

Caring allowance 

The care allowance scheme is good and ensures parents income and financial security when they are going through one of the most demanding things a parent can experience – a sick child. The government is not proposing any changes to the care allowance scheme for 2026, and we are positive that no cuts will be introduced to the scheme, but this also means that some important weaknesses in the scheme remain unresolved. The Lion Mothers would like to highlight some of the issues we believe need urgent change: 

• Care allowance for three months after the death of a child, regardless of the length of the care allowance period prior to the death. The time of grief cannot be measured in the number of months of care allowance. Parents do not grieve less, and they do not return to work sooner because they have had a longer care period. The distinction currently made at three years of reception time is artificial, meaningless and without professional support. A child's death is a life crisis, not an administrative deviation. Equating all parents after the death of a child is about respect, equality and dignity – not about costs. 

• Right to unemployment benefits if you lose your job during the care period. It is unreasonable that parents who lose their job while receiving care benefits are left without the right to unemployment benefits and thus in practice risk a financial zero point, where social assistance becomes the only alternative. Other social security schemes – such as sickness benefits, maternity benefits and parental benefits – give the right to unemployment benefits if the employee loses their job during the insurance period. The same principle should apply to care benefit recipients. Parents who care for a seriously ill child are in an extraordinary situation and should have at least the same rights as other employees who temporarily receive benefits. Lack of the right to unemployment benefits creates financial insecurity and can lead to families being pushed into poverty in an already demanding life situation. This violates the purpose of the care benefit scheme – namely to ensure income and security for parents who must temporarily be away from work to care for their sick child. 

• Right to follow wage growth/tariff settlement. For the very few parents who receive childcare benefits over a long period of time – that is, over several years – the financial loss is significant. The childcare benefit rate remains unchanged while prices increase, and parents are thus gradually falling behind financially. The childcare benefit scheme differs from other social security benefits such as sickness benefits, maternity benefits and parental benefits, which have a duration of up to one year. For these benefits, the lack of wage growth during the period has limited financial significance. For parents who receive childcare benefits over several years, however, the consequence of the lack of wage adjustment becomes increasingly greater, and the difference between previous wages and the benefit increases with each passing year. 

Parents who are outside the workforce 

There is a need for a separate scheme that takes care of those who, for various reasons, are outside the workforce, such as students, seasonal workers, offshore workers between contracts, AAP recipients, immigrants/refugees who have not had time to find work, etc. In practice, these fall between all the chairs, even if they perform equally extensive supervision and care. 

We would like to note that there is also a need for better rights that protect parents of children over 18 years of age. The challenge becomes particularly clear when the child becomes an adult on paper. Legal parental responsibility ends, but few children move out during the day. In practice, many municipalities lack both suitable housing and sufficient services for young adults with high needs. Parents are then left with the main responsibility – often without income, and without it being counted as work or providing pension accrual. Many have to take unpaid “sick child days”, step down or use welfare leave to cover the municipality’s lack of services. The result is that parents who have been in care for years themselves become financially vulnerable as elderly people. This is a serious gender equality challenge. 

Parents who are in long-term supervision and caregiving roles lose both financial security and employment rights, and risk permanently dropping out of the workforce when these challenges are not addressed.  

Basic and auxiliary allowance 

Although the allocations increase somewhat on paper – from NOK 1.85 to 1.89 billion for basic benefits and from NOK 2.52 to 2.75 billion for supplementary benefits – this is not about better support for families. The rates will remain unchanged. The increase is simply due to more people needing help. 

For families who are already living on the edge financially, this means in practice a cut. The prices of food, medicine, equipment and electricity are rising, but benefits are stagnant. Parents who spend all their time caring for a seriously ill child do not have the opportunity to "work more" to cover what is missing. When the state does not adjust benefits in line with the cost level, it directly affects everyday life - on the kitchen counter, in the shopping cart and in the mail when the bills arrive. 

This is not about luxuries, but about necessities: medicines and creams that are not covered by a blue prescription, special food, transportation to hospital and other treatment, and clothes that need to be changed and washed frequently. When benefits do not keep up with price increases, the families with the greatest burdens lose the most. We ask the Storting to increase the rates of basic and auxiliary benefits in line with the cost level. 

Transitional allowance 

The Lion Mothers support that there should still be an exception for parents with children who have special supervision needs, but we are concerned that the concept is practiced differently. Many families with high care needs risk having to document extensive needs in order to be included, as the assessment of "special supervision needs" currently varies between NAV offices. We therefore call for a clear national definition of the concept, and simplified documentation practices to ensure fair treatment. 

Family coordinator in NAV – positive, but unclear 

The trial with a family coordinator in NAV could potentially improve coordination for families with complex needs somewhat. However, we call for clarity about the target group and expect that families with children with illnesses and disabilities will be included in the pilots. 

The lionesses as an item in the state budget 

In 2024, the Patient and User Ombudsman received 17,723 new inquiries with 68 employees. In comparison, the Lion Mothers answered a total of 109,700 inquiries in the same year, without a single permanent employee. The Lion Mothers are run exclusively by voluntary efforts from parents who themselves have experience with sick/disabled children. Many of our volunteers have both important experience and relevant professional expertise in health, law, education and social sciences. In addition, we are affiliated with a lawyer, so that we can provide quality-assured advice. 

We answer daily inquiries from families who cannot get help elsewhere, but also from health personnel, coordinators and social workers who seek advice, and we regularly receive cases forwarded from the Patient and User Ombudsman, NAV's care allowance hotline, hospitals and municipalities. When families in crisis more often get help from a voluntary organization than from the public sector, it shows how critically necessary we are as part of the welfare structure. We fill a void that the state would otherwise have to fill with paid professional personnel – and we do it for free, on a voluntary basis and with heart. 

We ask the Storting to establish a fixed, annual allocation for Løvemammaene from the state budget, in line with other national umbrella organizations. Such basic funding is necessary to ensure continuity and quality in the comprehensive support we provide to families. 

The lionesses are not a supplement to the system – we is the system for many families where the system has failed. A fixed allocation is a socially and economically wise policy and a question of legal certainty for children and families with the greatest need for assistance. 

With best regards  
The lion mothers